Using Erroneous Information to Support a Hypothesis...

I am in agreement that it is very probable the Great Pyramids, and more so the Sphinx, are much older than we currently give them credit for. I
personally think Hawass is also a con man, and I rank him up there with Von Daniken and Sitchin, he just happened to be ordained by the Egyptian
government of his time. He has contradicted himself several times in interviews, and seems to want to block any research into sites via endless red
tape.

But the bottom line is: If someone uses known false data to fit their hypothesis, that person is a charlatan and should be thoroughly dismissed from
all educated conversation. And when I say educated, I mean people who have completely researched a subject using observational facts. You do not need
an advanced degree to be an expert in a field. There are people who have never been to college who have absolutely schooled me in debate form when it
comes to causal effects of weather phenomena. In fact, people outside of the box are ones who actually helped me push the envelope when I had the
opportunity. Pushing the envelope when you are inside the box though only results in stress and anxiety.

I think it is perfectly possible to form a hypothesis with given data, much like you were able to show in your post, without including the works of
known con men who's only agenda seems to be making money.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.